I'm not sure if you're trying to be annoying, trolling, or what, but your statement sure shows you're trying confuse the issue.

You can accuse him of being 'annoying' (to some, anyway), but accusing him of trolling for arguing over what's "full-featured" seems a bit beyond the pale, Mel. And you're a mod-guy now anyway, not a loose cannon.

What's got your dander up today, anyway? From reading your other posts, you seem to trying to lay the smack down pretty hard today.

Not unless the carriers start providing the data plans for free. As long as it costs $70 minimum per month just to use a smartphone, most people are going to say "well, that's kind of neat, but do I really need it?" and then go on to buy a regular phone that costs half the monthly fee.

It's important to remember that smartphones aren't being sold for a couple of hundred bucks. They're being sold for a couple of hundred bucks plus $30 or $40 for the data plan * 24 months. So an iPhone is $200 + $30 * 24 = $920, not including any additional monthly fees that you continue to accrue if you use the phone after your contract runs out. That's a hefty chunk of change for a data feature that most people would only use occasionally. Hell, you could buy a midrange PC for that price.

You might as well compare it to cable television, or satellite. You still need to buy a new Tv, and get to pay a good deal per month for the feed.

What's the difference, not much.

The point is that things change, and wht we didn't consider at all at one time, becomes not only important, but required.

That happened to cellphones at first, and now, at an ever increasing pace, it's happening with smartphones and data plans.

You can accuse him of being 'annoying' (to some, anyway), but accusing him of trolling for arguing over what's "full-featured" seems a bit beyond the pale, Mel. And you're a mod-guy now anyway, not a loose cannon.

What's got your dander up today, anyway? From reading your other posts, you seem to trying to lay the smack down pretty hard today.

...

It's not beyond the pale.

When someone states over and again, the same exact reason for saying something, without actually giving some good logical reasons for saying it, either the poster is simply trying to get people to respond angrily, or is trolling. We've seen it before. I questioned whether he was trolling by giving the two reasons why he might be saying what he is, in the way he is.

So sure, I get my dander up when that happens.

He hasn't made a single argument in his favor, while some others have, even though they are on the side of the argument he's on.

Exactly. Apple was smart to make the features that they did offer very solid. Just read Pogue's review of the Storm to see what happens when you rush to market with an unfinished product.

Exactly!

Several reviewers have questioned whether anyone actually tried to do any real typing on that keyboard. They've also questioned why it's so amazingly buggy, even though its release was held up to get rid of bugs.

Sorry, I don't follow. Where has it been said or suggested that Android will become a full-fledged OS to be used on netbooks? Also, I don't see how Android is "very similar" to OS X iPhone.

Can't say where I heard it but most definitely Android will appear on netbooks next year. Android and iPhone OS are "similar" in that they are finger-based interfaces for computing with minimal overhead and are synced to a parent computer for the most part.

In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...

I'm not sure if you're trying to be annoying, trolling, or what, but your statement sure shows you're trying confuse the issue.

By your standard, no product can ever be called full featured, because no product will every be able to have all features, real and imagined.

Since that's obviously your definition, whether you care to admit it or not, I'll grant your wish, and say that by that standard, the iPhone is not full featured.

As I have already said, from the definition you guys are making, every phone in existence is full featured, which they are not, and neither is the iPhone. It doesn't implement BT fully, it doesn't implement GSM features fully.

As I have already said, from the definition you guys are making, every phone in existence is full featured, which they are not, and neither is the iPhone. It doesn't implement BT fully, it doesn't implement GSM features fully.

No, it's the impossible definition that YOU are making that's the problem. You expect that every feature that may exist be incorporated in a device before it can be called full featured, even though that's not the definition of what full featured has ever meant.

Oh, and non-smartphones aren't being subsidized? You seem to ignore that there was already a ton of demand for the iPhone before it was offered to the rest of the world. Apple imposed limits on the number of iPhones sold per person and required credit cards with the original iPhone after a few months because of foreigners buying them in bulk and then selling them in the gray market in their home countries; the iPhone 3G requires in-store activation because of this.

Yes other phones are subsidised, and you will find that you pay less for the subsidised model, than the non-subsidised, because you are locked into a contract, or locked to that network for a certain time with a subsidised model.

A lot of that demand was artificial, the US$ was at a massive low at the time, Apple did their usual trick of selling cheap in the US market. You would have been silly not to purchase them in the US at that time, heck I brought an iPod and a MacBook in the US and saved a few hundred euro on them. Also, the reason they stopped things was they were losing money on them, AT&T were giving them a constant revenue stream at the time.

But of course Jobs is obviously an idiot who should be slavishly implementing feature demands from every basement blogger on the planet.
_

Sure, things like MMS are just fringe features that only a few crackpots would want and... oh wait. It's exactly the opposite of that:

A recent survey by the CTIA – The Wireless Association reports... [that] cell phones are being used more for purposes like capturing and sending pictures and other multimedia messages, with more than 5.6 billion MMS recorded in the first half of 2008. This amount is equivalent to the number of MMSes sent in the whole year of 2007.

And that's just in the US. Imagine how many TENS OF BILLIONS of pic/multimedia messages get sent worldwide each year. And, if the US in any indication, it's accelerating.

Quote:

Unless of course you look at the fact that he's got the only successful strategy going at the moment.
_

Not sure that's true. Check out the chart below... RIM's been increasing in marketshare too, as has HTC. Though both will feel the pinch of the economic downturn.

Quote:

People are finally starting to realise that the "smartphone market" or the smartphone segment of the cell market is poised to become the entire market.
_

I think that's a bit of hype. Maybe in the very long-term, that's possible, but in the short- or medium-term, I doubt it. Why?

Well, a few reasons. One- go ask a cellphone salesman how many ppl want a 'FREE' cellphone. Lots do. Of course, it isn't really 'free', it's being subsidized by the service contract, but Joe Average does not grok that. So when the iPhone is available for ZERO dollars, maybe then the dubmphone market will be on its' legs... but even then, it probably isn't completely, because of portability. And simplicity.

That same big screen that makes the iPhone so lovely for so many things also makes it quite wide, and tall. Sure, it's thin, but thin does not equal small, all by itself (though Steve seems to think so). I have a midrange flip phone that I can easily stick in the my jeans change pocket. The iPhone won't fit in there, nor do most competing smartphones. Some ppl just like small, and smartphones are inherently 'not small', thanks to the big screen.

Then there's the fact that some ppl just find smartphones intimidating, and really do want a simple phone that "just makes calls". Or at least a phone that looks simple, even if it can do other things. Sure, that's mostly older folks, but hey, they buy phones and service contracts too.

So, I wouldn't expect the dumbphone market to go away just yet.

Quote:

Hmm, I don't see people wanting to talk on a bulkier, more expensive toy laptop. [i.e. netbook]
_

I tend to agree. Even with a nice BT earpiece, you can't 'just whip out' a netbook the way you can a phone. Portability, again.

Quote:

Because "full featured" is not the same as "having every feature imaginable, whether you wanted them all or not."
_

Yes, but there is another definition of "full-featured": Having the common features that ppl EXPECT a cellphone to have. MMS definitely falls into that category.

Now, some other things that the iPhone doesn't have, like video-recording, cut-copy-paste, uncrippled bluetooth (last I checked), high-quality camera, etc don't necessarily fall into that category. But even then, some would argue that those things are expected on a high-end phone, which I guess the iPhone should be considered to be.

Our own US standards concerning that may be a tad sketchy. After all, we're not exposed to all of the neat-o high-end phones that the Euros, Japanese, and South Koreans are. So perhaps our viewpoints are tad bit skewed in that regard.

No, it's the impossible definition that YOU are making that's the problem. You expect that every feature that may exist be incorporated in a device before it can be called full featured, even though that's not the definition of what full featured has ever meant.

You are playing semantic games, at best.

I am not the one that started it, Daniel said it was full featured not me, if it is a game, maybe he shouldn't have added that part to the article, after all looking at the Apple Dictionary...

Full - not lacking or omitting anything; complete
Feature - A distinctive attribute or aspect of something

Yes other phones are subsidised, and you will find that you pay less for the subsidised model, than the non-subsidised, because you are locked into a contract, or locked to that network for a certain time with a subsidised model.

You are being sarcastic, right? I italicized aren't in my original response for a reason. I understand that the iPhone is not really $200, but only $200 with a two year contract. In the U.S., the vast majority of people buy subsidized phones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfanning

A lot of that demand was artificial, the US$ was at a massive low at the time, Apple did their usual trick of selling cheap in the US market. You would have been silly not to purchase them in the US at that time, heck I brought an iPod and a MacBook in the US and saved a few hundred euro on them. Also, the reason they stopped things was they were losing money on them, AT&T were giving them a constant revenue stream at the time.

Selling "cheap?" I don't understand how the original iPhone priced at $500-$600 was "cheap." Don't know why you bring up Macs, which aren't subsidized. Apple wasn't losing much money on the original iPhone because it was hardly subsidized at all, hence the high upfront cost and lower monthly fees. Now the iPhone has a lower upfront cost and higher monthly fees to compensate, like virtually all cell phones, smart or "dumb."

Because the iPhone is a software PLATFORM that has the potential to be extended in an infinite number of ways, as opposed to a collection of hardware features that are hastily thrown together with a bit of software "glue" to present a wanna-be product.

What the other smart phones lack, besides a well-integrated user-friendly OS, is a sweet development and simulation package (e.g. XCode) for developers to use, an easy path for the developers to publish, and a drop-dead gorgeous easy method for users to discover and install the new applications. If it isn't obvious to you yet just how far Apple is ahead in this race, it will become so when the other device makers' answer to the AppStore is about as successful as the "Zune Marketplace" in competing with iTunes.

Thompson

You have to kind of ignore, JT-Fanboy.
He's a Nokia fan with phone envy, and can't get over the success Apple is having.
Let's all just agree that Apple is the only phone company taking the industry by storm, causing all the others to react to Apples product by changing thier own features. And Apple is doing it with with a phone that really sucks and is woefully low on the features anyone would want and totally overpriced. Of course, the competitors for the iPhone have to be really bad, if with all these problems the iPhone is still growing like crazy and the lower cost competitors are getting slayed.....

When someone states over and again, the same exact reason for saying something, without actually giving some good logical reasons for saying it, either the poster is simply trying to get people to respond angrily, or is trolling. We've seen it before. I questioned whether he was trolling by giving the two reasons why he might be saying what he is, in the way he is.

No, not trolling, not trying to get people to respond angrily, just asking if people are going to write articles, they are least try and cut down the emotive aspects of it, and just put in the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

He hasn't made a single argument in his favor, while some others have, even though they are on the side of the argument he's on.

When someone states over and again, the same exact reason for saying something, without actually giving some good logical reasons for saying it, either the poster is simply trying to get people to respond angrily, or is trolling. We've seen it before. I questioned whether he was trolling by giving the two reasons why he might be saying what he is, in the way he is.

So sure, I get my dander up when that happens.

He hasn't made a single argument in his favor, while some others have, even though they are on the side of the argument he's on.

Not being articulate does not necessarily equal trolling, Mel.

If he'd said "Apple is teh suxxorz", then I'd be whacking him upside the head alongside of you.

Basically, you're doing the Internet equiv of shouting "Get off my lawn, you stupid kids!". Though, to be fair, that has always been the 'Mel way'.

I just think as a mod, you could be a tad bit more understanding 'bout it. When mods says certain things, it's perceived a bit differently.

You are being sarcastic, right? I italicized aren't in my original response for a reason. I understand that the iPhone is not really $200, but only $200 with a two year contract. In the U.S., the vast majority of people buy subsidized phones.

And the US are a small player in the GSM market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wobegon

Selling "cheap?" I don't understand how the original iPhone priced at $500-$600 was "cheap." Don't know why you bring up Macs, which aren't subsidized. Apple wasn't losing much money on the original iPhone because it was hardly subsidized at all, hence the high upfront cost and lower monthly fees. Now the iPhone has a lower upfront cost and higher monthly fees to compensate, like virtually all cell phones, smart or "dumb."

No, not trolling, not trying to get people to respond angrily, just asking if people are going to write articles, they are least try and cut down the emotive aspects of it, and just put in the facts.

Ugh, this is one of those cases where people say "you know what I mean."

You know what Dan meant (or you should have). Most cell manufacturers sell a plethora of phones, some "dumb" phones, some full-featured smartphones with big keyboards taking up space for a screen, some full-featured touchscreen models. Apple's simplified business model of offering a unified, full-featured touchscreen smartphone has shown itself to be very successful. I don't see how his statement was "emotive" in the least.

Sure, things like MMS are just fringe features that only a few crackpots would want and... oh wait. It's exactly the opposite of that:

A recent survey by the CTIA The Wireless Association reports... [that] cell phones are being used more for purposes like capturing and sending pictures and other multimedia messages, with more than 5.6 billion MMS recorded in the first half of 2008. This amount is equivalent to the number of MMSes sent in the whole year of 2007.

And that's just in the US. Imagine how many BILLIONS of pic/multimedia messages get sent worldwide each year. And, if the US in any indication, it's accelerating.

I've looked around, there doesn't seem to be much information on how many MMS messages are sent world wide. Their is more information on SMS, but still difficult to find current and accurate world wide numbers.

What I could find was still eclipsed by email. Its estimated that 62 billion emails are sent every day world wide.

Quote:

I think that's a bit of hype. Maybe in the very long-term, that's possible, but in the short- or medium-term, I doubt it. Why?

Anecdotally. Looking at the commercials carriers run these days. They are all for smartphones, or full QWRTY keyboard phones. I think these will quickly replace keypad phones.

Sure, but the rest of the world isn't 100% unsubsidized, anti-contract either.

You also seem to be ignoring my original point: the first generation iPhone was $500-$600 and was sold in the gray market because there was so much overseas demand. In addition, these iPhones were often sold at a premium by hawkers. Now the iPhone 3G is easily attainable in these countries at a lower price than what hawkers would charge.

I've looked around, there doesn't seem to be much information on how many MMS messages are sent world wide. Their is more information on SMS, but still difficult to find current and accurate world wide numbers.

You honestly think that MMSes are rare in places like Europe and Asia? Wow.

In any case, here's something I found:

"Almost 30 billion MMSes sent in 1Q08, says Informa"

There's also a cool little chart of how many MMSes were sent in Q1 '08, by carrier (though it lists only the bigger carriers).

For example, China Mobile alone had 6.6 billion MMSes sent in the 1st quarter. Verizon, 1.1 billion MMSes. And so on. What's more, the year-over-year amounts of MMSes sent is WAY UP for most of the carriers too.

You honestly think that MMSes are rare in places like Europe and Asia? Wow.

In any case, here's something I found:

"Almost 30 billion MMSes sent in 1Q08, says Informa"

There's also a cool little chart of how many MMSes were sent in Q1 '08, by carrier (though it lists only the bigger carriers).

For example, China Mobile alone had 6.6 billion MMSes sent in the 1st quarter. Verizon, 1.1 billion MMSes. And so on. What's more, the year-over-year amounts of MMSes sent is WAY UP for most of the carriers too.

It means nothing other than the fact that more people are getting phones.

I really, really doubt it.

If you check out the figures, the year-over-year growth rates in MMS traffic for many carriers are VERY high (like on the order of 50%, 100%, even 250%), and are not explainable simply by 'more people are getting phones'.

Take Verizon, for example. Their year-over-year increase in MMS traffic is 144%. Verizon has not more than DOUBLED in number of subscribers in the past year. That increase is more like 10%.

So, either MMS pricing is becoming more attractive (and Verizon is offering some nice MMS 'plans' these days), the technology itself is being more popularized on its' own, or it's some combination of the two.

But how many of those emails are sent on phones? Certainly a tiny fraction of the whole.

In any case, you can see that MMS is quite a popular technology.

...

The current number isn't that important, it's the growth of email that is the real tell. Since it is more ubiquitous and their is a trend to more powerful devices that can support email it look inevitable in the more developed countries.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"